Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36154765›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Analysis of a Cochlear Implant Database: Changes in Tinnitus Prevalence and Distress After Cochlear Implantation.

Kelly K S Assouly, Adriana L Smit, Robert H Eikelboom, Cathy Sucher, Marcus Atlas, Robert J Stokroos, Inge Stegeman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cochlear Implantation in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis of 23 Years of Activity.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Tinnitus suppression by means of cochlear implantation: does it affect cognition?European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Kelly K S AssoulyDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2667-9499
Adriana L SmitDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Robert H Eikelboom104182Ear Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, Western Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2911-5381
Cathy Sucher104182Ear Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, Western Australia.
Marcus Atlas104182Ear Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, Western Australia.
Robert J StokroosDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Inge StegemanDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLThe University of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence and distress of tinnitus pre- and post-cochlear implantation in patients with bilateral severe to profound hearing loss. In this retrospective study, we included patients from a cochlear implant clinic in Perth, Western Australia. Pre- and post-cochlear implantation data from 300 implant recipients were collected on self-reported presence of tinnitus, tinnitus distress using the Tinnitus Reaction Questionnaire (TRQ), hearing-related quality of life using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), and consonant-nucleus vowel-consonant (CNC) word recognition test scores. Retrospectively, patients were grouped into those with or without tinnitus, and the grade of tinnitus distress. The potential factors associated with post-implantation changes in the presence of tinnitus and its distress were evaluated. Tinnitus prevalence was 55.8% pre-operatively and 44.3% post-implantation with a median TRQ score respectively of 12.0 (IQR: 1.0-28.0) and 3.5 (IQR: 0.0-16.2) points. Among the 96 patients experiencing tinnitus pre-implantation, 14.6% patients experienced moderate to catastrophic tinnitus distress pre-implantation compared to 6.3% post-implantation. To conclude, the pre- and post-implantation median TRQ score for the cohort population showed that tinnitus was a "slight" handicap. Tinnitus prevalence and its associated tinnitus distress decreased post-implantation. Patients with tinnitus post-implantation were significantly younger and had less severe pre-implantation hearing loss in the non-implanted ear than patients without tinnitus. Further research is needed to understand the factors influencing changes in tinnitus.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsHearing LossSpeech PerceptionTinnitusHumansPrevalenceQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomeadultscochlear implantprevalencequality of lifetinnitus

Identifiers

PMID36154765
PMCPMC9515522
OpenAlexW4297201596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.